Getting neighbors onboard with big buck mgmt

[Smalls]

I don't really see what any of this has to do with deer, but I'll go ahead an entertain you, if I must.

Put simply:

No to increased red snapper regulation. Simple answer: back it up with science. If you don't have science to impose stricter limits, don't impose them.

No to the global warming thing. I've had to study climate change in a few trainings I've done, and there has been a history of warming and cooling. It's a natural cycle the planet goes through. Was that way for a long time before any of us got here.

As far as the dead zone goes, I'm not as up on that as you may be. I've studied it in a few different classes and here or there reading different things, but I'm not going to offer an opinion on it without really knowing what I'm talking about on that subject.

I agree with your assessment of the explosive well removals as well. Not really a fan of that.

So what point are you trying to make exactly? Is it about basing regulatory decisions on science, because I definitely haven't said anything contrary to that. Maybe I wasn't clear with my view of deer harvest numbers (that is what this thread is about, right? Not all this other off topic matter that you keep dragging into this?). I am not suggesting that they should be lowered without scientific proof. If you got that impression, my apologies.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by CajunSteelsetter

DuckButter....you have created something my friend. I feel like I've stumbled into an intellectual duel between the "Biology Bonaparte" and the duke of "Well I know math...so ha".

MG is oh so close to saying 'draconian sanctions' I can smell it He keeps hinting at it, just say it MG!

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

this thread was serious as a heart attack, matter of fact I took that biologists advice and went and planted some lime trees yesterday before the rain. He told me limes was good on that dirt I had.

DB you bring the limes and I'll bring the coconut rum.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

DB you bring the limes and I'll bring the coconut rum.

he told me my dirt had acid all up in it and to put limes out, I been goin grocery store and gettin their old limes, and planted lime trees, when them limes get ripe on that tree we meet up and have us a little party brah!

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

he told me my dirt had acid all up in it and to put limes out, I been goin grocery store and gettin their old limes, and planted lime trees, when them limes get ripe on that tree we meet up and have us a little party brah!

Sweeeeeet... Party on da beach. Who's bringin da chips and hot wings?

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

Sweeeeeet... Party on da beach. Who's bringin da chips and hot wings?

Hey man, bring me some of them limes, and I'll make my 5 pepper, garlic and lime grilled wings.

[MathGeek]

It is always easy to paint those who oppose more restrictive wildlife regulations as against conservation rather than wanting criminalization of basic liberties to be based on science, and by science, I mean the case needs to be made in public by publicly available data, rather than by citing scientists. I felt it was useful to discuss more broadly based topics to illustrate that the small gov't view is often differentiated from the big gov't view by some subtleties:

1. The small gov't view maintains that the burden of scientific proof rests on the gov't or on the proponents of restricting liberties. Big gov't often shifts this burden by pretending users of natural resources are guilty of unsustainable or destructive practices until they prove themselves innocent.

2. Scientific proof means sound reasoning based on published data. Global warming, red snapper management, and the Gulf of Mexico's purported "dead zone" are three cases where those arguing for restrictive public policies have changed "scientific proof" to mean "viewpoints of scientists" rather than clear interpretations of published data.

3. In most states, the law requires wildlife be managed with the goal of preserving the resource (sustainability) without favoring the desires of one user group over other user groups. Recent management proposals for new and more restrictive regulations to increase availability of trophy animals favor invariably favor one group over others. This is true for QDM, speckled trout, management schemes to produce more trophy bass, etc. Special interest groups (those wanting trophy management) support government growth and intrusiveness through additional regulation when they advocate use of government power to further their goals above other stakeholders.

4. All the data shows that Gulf waters off the LA coast have tremendous numbers of red snapper (almost overpopulation) because LA waters have a much higher carrying capacity than Gulf waters adjacent to other states. The unit stock hypothesis that justifies federal management of the whole Gulf is analogous to making Louisiana a single deer zone and applying the most restrictive hunting regulations designed to preserve the herd in the least populated Parish to the whole state. Federal (rather than state) level management is almost always always a big gov't viewpoint, especially when the data fails to show the need for regulation at the federal level. Small gov't conservationists know that the feds rarely ever relinquish power back to the states once they have usurped it.

[MathGeek]

Being a math geek allows one to see the sleight of hand in many overly burdensome management schemes, because often the abuse of power is buried in flawed analysis and complex population models and is not directly demonstrated in the data. Many stakeholders in wildlife management are left merely trusting or distrusting the "scientists" because they cannot unravel the complex models. For example, the Roy Crabtree and James Cowan crowd based the overly restrictive red snapper regulations on complex Gulf of Mexico wide population models. In contrast Bob Shipp and LDWF take a more local and more directly data driven approach that makes it obvious that red snapper populations would support higher harvest levels in certain waters.

One can develop complex population models for deer too, but there can be a lot of insight based more directly on data. For example, in a Parish where the deer herd is close to its carrying capacity with a balanced (near 50/50) sex ratio and being managed both for sustainability and near maximum hunter success rates, about 1/3 of the deer population can be safely harvested each year. Let's take a hypothetical parish with 3000 deer. The "brown is down" management approach will yield (on average) 1000 deer per year, assuming negligible predator and collision mortality rates. Average collision and predator mortality rates of 100 deer per year would leave only 900 deer for the hunters.

In contrast, depending on the implementation details, most QDM or big bucks management schemes allow for only 10-20% of the population to be harvested each year (depending on the details). Antler restrictions requiring 4 pts on a side would probably allow 20% harvest, or 600 deer per year in a parish with a carrying capacity of 3000 deer. This is because QDM changes the age and sex structure in the population with more older deer and fewer bucks. The average age at harvest would shift from between 1.5 and 2.0 years up to 2.0-4.0 years, and the percentage of does would shift from 50% or so down to 20-30%.

This is very similar to a cattle ranch that can produce 500 beef cattle per year if they are harvested at an age of 1.5 years, but would decrease in production to 300 cattle per year if shifting to a harvest age of 3 years.

The numbers are approximate, but the idea that increasing the average age at harvest will always reduce the available harvest for a given carrying capacity is very sound.

Management can take an alternate approach through improving habitat (carrying capacity) and reducing losses to predators and other non-harvest mortality (collisions dominate in deer). This would enable a given system to produce both more trophies and more younger animals for harvest. In deer, this can be planting and maintaining food plots, increasing edge, etc. Even keeping an area mowed (with a brush hog) once or twice a year rather than grown up can provide a lot more forage. Assisting in efforts to control wild hogs and coyotes can reduce predation and habitat destruction.

In seatrout, habitat restoration can do a lot more than more restrictive limits. Oyster reefs and marsh are key. Most natural predators are reasonably well controlled, and killing more sharks or dolphins is unreasonable since both of these are well below historical levels. Saltwater intrusion is the biggest threat to the marsh, and overharvesting of oysters and depredation by black drum are the biggest ongoing threats to essential oyster reef habitat. Killing every black drum you catch (within legal limits) probably does more for seatrout than killing every coyote and wild hog you see does for deer.

[Smalls]

Man, I can spend all day arguing with you on why some of your points are off, and agreeing with which ones are on. But I got better things to do than sit here and argue on the internet with you when you're just rambling on.

I've said my piece, I'm done.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Man, I can spend all day arguing with you on why some of your points are off, and agreeing with which ones are on. But I got better things to do than sit here and argue on the internet with you when you're just rambling on.

I've said my piece, I'm done.

You have the right to remain silent. So does Lois Lerner.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You have the right to remain silent. So does Lois Lerner.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1396117794.112582.jpg

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You have the right to remain silent. So does Lois Lerner.

Alright, so you want to be that way eh? You can't just leave it alone. I try to bow out, and you take a cheap shot. Alright, lets play then.

You completely ignore everytime I call you out on your lack of knowledge of Louisiana regulations. Sure, you can throw around some science. I can do that too. Difference is, I know regs too. You make up some BS about how something like Area-specific regulations would be difficult to enforce because people wouldn't know boundaries.

All you want to do is try and find something to prove what you think you know about me, which you haven't, and you don't. I'm not some big government guy like you've tried to paint me. But I'm also not some ultra-conservative either. There has to be some regulations. Are some off the wall? Yeah. I didn't say I agreed with all of them.

Oh and congratulations on that last post about deer population management. You just spouted off my undergraduate big game management class. Way to go.

[MathGeek]

When boundary lines follow easy landmarks like I-10 or major rivers, they are simple. However, many states invariably designate many wildlife management zones with political (parish or county) boundaries also. It isn't BS to assert that many times it can be hard to discern which side of a parish line a gunshot originated from or even on which side of a parish line a deer was recovered on. I also pointed out that states which have many zones with different harvest limits (as opposed to different open dates) charge a lot more for tags, using Colorado's example of $34 (each) deer tags.

I considered getting into the details of how enforcement efforts depend more strongly on the number of days different seasons are open than merely the total land area, but I decided not to get into the weeds of that quantitative analysis. Suffice to say that if deer hunting is closed in some areas, the number of calls will go down in those areas, and enforcement personnel can be shifted to areas that remain open for improved enforcement, or maybe even allowed some time off.

I don't believe I have ever misstated a Louisiana hunting regulation. Inferences to the contrary relied on several assumptions along the lines of enforcement depending only on land area and not increasing if certain areas have multiple seasons open at the same time.

Perhaps you do see yourself as a small gov't conservationist. But proposing new and more expensive regulations is growing government just the same.

[Smalls]

But we are talking about Louisiana. Any examples I used of other state regulations were just that, examples. This conversation has been about deer regulations and management in Louisiana.

When have I proposed new regulations? Never. I never said we should move to lower limits in some areas. I stated that some areas have lower carrying capacities than others. The deer population is not evenly spread across the state. So if the harvest limit is based on the statewide population, you could potentially cause an overharvest in some areas.


My argument has been, and still is, that if the evidence is there that a particular area cannot support a given harvest level, it should be adjusted.

Any argument about enforcement being more difficult with differing limits across different zones is absurd too. How does Texas do it? They have a statewide limit, and then certain counties have limits that may be less than that. The agents are still afield, just enforcing a different limit in an area. The only way I see that getting more expensive is on the consumer side. You don't have to charge $34 a tag. I don't understand how that is relevant. Enforcing an area specific limit should not be any different than enforcing a statewide limit. Please explain why it is.

Lets take an example. You have a statewide limit of 6 deer. 10 clearly defined areas. 4 of those areas have a 4 deer limit because of lower populations. What makes this so much more difficult and expensive to enforce?

Also, for the record, I have never said anything to the effect of opposing different season lengths by area either.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

My argument has been, and still is, that if the evidence is there that a particular area cannot support a given harvest level, it should be adjusted.

Any argument about enforcement being more difficult with differing limits across different zones is absurd too. How does Texas do it? They have a statewide limit, and then certain counties have limits that may be less than that. The agents are still afield, just enforcing a different limit in an area. The only way I see that getting more expensive is on the consumer side. You don't have to charge $34 a tag. I don't understand how that is relevant. Enforcing an area specific limit should not be any different than enforcing a statewide limit. Please explain why it is.

Lets take an example. You have a statewide limit of 6 deer. 10 clearly defined areas. 4 of those areas have a 4 deer limit because of lower populations. What makes this so much more difficult and expensive to enforce?

I've explained this already, but I'll try again.

No one is going to have all four or all six deer with them in the field, so field enforcement of a seasonal limit is impractical. In contrast, the same objective of lower harvest can also be achieved with fewer days of open season in the areas with lower carrying capacity. A closed season is much easier to enforce in the field than a season limit. If someone has 1 dead deer out in the field during a closed season, they are clearly in violation. If someone is hunting deer out in the field during a closed season, they are clearly in violation.

Making a case that someone harvested 6 deer in a zone only allowing four is much harder. The case depends on the hunter himself to have accurately completed all the information on each deer kill on the proper form, and having accurately reported the location of each of the six kills. Effectively enforcing laws that require tracking down the minutia of the wheres and whens and paperwork of 4 to 6 deer kills is more labor intensive than busting someone for hunting during a closed season. When effective enforcement is much harder, some folks may be more inclined to work around the regulations, rendering them less effective.

The same is true in fishing. One could regulate the harvest of a given species, by capping the total number that could be harvested in a given year. But this approach is much harder to enforce than daily bag limits and limiting open dates.

[Smalls]

You still have to catch them out of season. You have to catch anyone in violation of a law. Doesn't matter if its in season or out of season.

So are you saying that if the science points to the need for a reduced limit, it should not be done because it would be "too difficult"? Then why does Texas do it? Why does any state do it? It seems to me if it were too difficult to enforce, no one would do it.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

You still have to catch them out of season. You have to catch anyone in violation of a law. Doesn't matter if its in season or out of season.

So are you saying that if the science points to the need for a reduced limit, it should not be done because it would be "too difficult"? Then why does Texas do it? Why does any state do it? It seems to me if it were too difficult to enforce, no one would do it.

Science does not point to a reduced limit. Science points to a reduced harvest. The reduced harvest can be achieved by reducing the number of open days or by reducing the maximum allowed kill by one hunter during the season.

It isn't "too difficult" to enforce in every case, but it is more expensive to enforce. You feel free to refer to regulations in other states as proof that they are workable, but then criticize me when I bring up the higher implementation costs. Sure, Louisiana could make it work by selling $34 deer tags like Colorado does. I'm sure the extra $6 million in fees would cover the needed manpower. I haven't dug into the Texas implementation to see how they make their system work or handle the tradeoffs.

But the big question is why you don't think the scientific goal of limiting harvest in certain zones can be achieved by reducing open dates?

How far below 425 deer per season does Calcasieu need to go? How much below 75 deer per season does Cameron need to go? How many of those deer are actually deer #5 and deer #6 for a given hunter? If few hunters are even getting to 5 and 6 deer in zone 10, reducing open days is more likely to work, even without considering the added enforcement challenge of a tag based seasonal limit scheme.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

2. Scientific proof means sound reasoning based on published data. Global warming, red snapper management, and the Gulf of Mexico's purported "dead zone" are three cases where those arguing for restrictive public policies have changed "scientific proof" to mean "viewpoints of scientists" rather than clear interpretations of published data.

Now you know better than that. Not everything can be 'proven' (especially in the field of wildlife and/or fisheries). You sometimes have to make decisions made on the best available data you have at the time (much of it can't be proven) As a physicist you have to know that most of the early science in that field were hypotheses, then they stood up to time (a long time) and became a theory, takes a LONG time for something to become an actual aka being able to actually prove something. It was long believed the world was flat, it was also believed the sun rotated around the earth, took a long time to actually 'prove' that

[/QUOTE]
4. All the data shows that Gulf waters off the LA coast have tremendous numbers of red snapper (almost overpopulation) because LA waters have a much higher carrying capacity than Gulf waters adjacent to other states. [/QUOTE]

Link to this data please? Show us some 'scientific proof' and not 'viewpoints of some scientists' or a few spearfishermen

[Duck Butter]

Almost ran the gamut here, got deer antler restrictions, tripletail, red snapper limits, trout limits on Big Lake. Only thing missing we haven't discussed is deer hunting behind dogs and Ducks Unlimited heating ponds to shortstop our ducks

[MathGeek]

4. All the data shows that Gulf waters off the LA coast have tremendous numbers of red snapper (almost overpopulation) because LA waters have a much higher carrying capacity than Gulf waters adjacent to other states.

Link to this data please? Show us some 'scientific proof' and not 'viewpoints of some scientists' or a few spearfishermen

I never claimed "proof". "Proof" is a term I almost never use, except when quoting others who have claimed it or speaking of geometry proofs. I've never used the word "proof" in my published papers when discussing data.

Data can support, indicate, show, demonstrate aspects relative to assertions, hypotheses or theories, but not theory in science is every "proven."

I've linked much of the red snapper data before in threads discussing snapper more directly, and I'm not inclined to chase all the links down again in a deer thread. Use the search function.